Purchase of Province-Guaranteed Bonds by the Carinthian Compensation Payment Fund

Report ID: 352

From March to October 2018, the Austrian Court of Audit (ACA) and the Court of Audit of Carinthia carried out an audit of the agreement on the purchase of province-guaranteed bonds by the Carinthian Compensation Payment Fund (Kärntner Ausgleichszahlungs-Fonds) pursuant to Section 2a of the Financial Market Stability Act (Finanzmarktstabilitätsgesetz). In this context, the provincial parliament of Carinthia addressed an audit request to both the ACA and the Court of Audit of Carinthia.

The audit institutions performed the audit jointly in order to prevent a duplication of efforts. The audit aimed at presenting the initial situation and at assessing the development and structure as well as the approval, financing and implementation of the second offer. The auditors furthermore looked into the costs and the remaining economic risks. The audited period essentially spanned the years from 2015 through 2017. 

Central recommendations

1. The Carinthian Compensation Payment Fund should step up its efforts in order to attain an adequate premium reduction for the liability insurance of the executive board.
2. In the interest of encouraging competition and compliance with the principles of economy and efficiency, the Carinthian Compensation Payment Fund should award service contracts only via a public procurement process or after at least three reference offers have been solicited.
3. As regards the negotiations with the Heta Asset Resolution AG (HETA), the Carinthian Compensation Payment Fund should, against the backdrop of the interim distributions that have in the meanwhile taken place, carry out a legal assessment of a rapid and appropriate write-down and the possibility of withdrawing the HETA securities in order to achieve a subsequent reduction in custodian fees.
4. The province of Carinthia and the Carinthian Compensation Payment Fund should carry out an analysis of possible further steps of the hold-outs or other creditors, taking into consideration the cost-benefit ratio, or commission suitable lawyers or experts to ensure best possible pre-paredness for such judicial or extrajudicial steps.

Source: https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/news/news/news_1/Erwerb_von_landesbehafteten_Schuldtiteln_durch_den_Kaerntne.html

Synthesis Report on the coordinated audit on Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS)

Report ID: 265

About Jaspers In 2005, the European Commission decided to engage in a new initiative together with the European Investment Bank (EIB), known as ‘Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions’ (JASPERS), to provide the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 or later with independent technical advice.

The aim of the JASPERS initiative was to help the Member States, free of charge, to prepare high-quality proposals for large investment projects for funding through the EU’s Cohesion and European Regional Development Funds.

In march 2016, the SAIs of Croatia, the Supreme Audit Office of Poland as well as the European Court of Auditors (ECA)  agreed to carry out a coordinated audit. It was a performance audit of the effectiveness of the JASPERS initiative in the field of shared management in Structural/Cohesion funds.

The audits covered the period from when JASPERS began operations in 2006 until the end of 2016. Within the respective audit mandates of the three SAIs, the main audit topics and audit criteria were established in a coordinated way between the three audit teams. 

Source: http://www.revizija.hr/datastore/filestore/82/SYNTHESIS_REPORT_ON_THE_COORDINATED_AUDIT_ON_JOINT_ASSISTANCE_TO_SUPPORT_PROJECTS_IN_EUROPEAN_REGIONS_JASPERS.pdf

Underlying Risks to Sustainable Public Finances

Report ID: 304

Parallel Audit Report to the Contact Committee of the heads of the SAIs  of the Member States of the European Union and the European Court of Auditors by the SAIs of Finland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden (Coordinator).

The parallel audit project was endorsed by the Contact Committee at its meeting in June 2015. The participating SAIs followed an agreed broad common audit approach allowing them to conduct their audit work according to their national mandates. Each SAI was free to decide the scope, audit questions and methods for their respective audit while recognising the common approach. This parallel audit report is thus a synthesis of six audits conducted independently by SAIs at the national level. It contains general observations and conclusions but no common recommendations.

The aims of the parallel audit was to 1) draw attention to risks that need to be addressed in order to maintain fiscal sustainability based on recommendations from international organisations; and 2) assess how the governments dealt with the recommendations they received.

This audit was based on reviews of country specific reports and recommendations from the European Union (EU), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued in the period 2011–2015, (the audited period). The participating SAIs have mapped the various recommendations to their respective country as well as the government responses to these recommendations. They have furthermore audited the public availability of the recommendations at national level as well as national follow-up procedures. A number of SAIs have moreover assessed the effectiveness of government measures.

A general observation of the parallel audit working group is that recommendations issued by the three international organisations tend to overlap within each country. This might indicate that the international organisations have pinpointed relevant areas of concern. The overall conclusion is that multilateral surveillance of economic policy, even when the recommendations are not binding, constitutes good opportunities for governments to learn from best practices and to improve their policies.

SOURCE: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Underlying%20Risks%20to%20Sustainable%20Public%20Finances/Parallel_Audit_Report_EN.pdf

Rapport de la task force sur l'union bancaire européenne au comité de contact des présidents des institutions supérieures de contrôle des États membres de l'Union européenne et de la Cour des comptes européenne

Report ID: 317

En 2008, l'Europe a été frappée par une crise financière et une crise de la dette souveraine qui a suivi. De nombreux gouvernements ont soutenu des institutions financières en faillite avec des fonds publics s'élevant à des centaines de milliards d'euros. En réaction, les pays de la zone euro ont mis en place l'Union bancaire européenne, qui comprend un mécanisme de surveillance unique.  Dans le cadre de ce mécanisme, la Banque centrale européenne est directement responsable de la surveillance prudentielle de toutes les "institutions importantes". Les autorités nationales compétentes sont directement responsables de la surveillance des "institutions moins importantes", sur la base des orientations de la Banque centrale européenne.

Les institutions supérieures de contrôle de l'Autriche, de Chypre, de la Finlande, de l'Allemagne et des Pays-Bas ont effectué un audit parallèle pour examiner le contrôle bancaire au niveau national. Les objectifs de l'audit parallèle étaient les suivants:

1) de mieux comprendre les différences entre les États membres de l'UE dans la manière dont les autorités de surveillance ont mis en place et exercent le contrôle prudentiel des INS, et

2) de recueillir des éléments probants sur les éventuelles "lacunes en matière d'audit" qui ont pu apparaître à la suite de l'introduction du mécanisme de contrôle unique.

L'une des conclusions était qu'un mandat d'audit complet évaluant le processus des contrôle et d'évaluation du contrôle bancaire n'est pas garanti dans le cadre du mécanisme de surveillance unique (MSS) et qu'avant novembre 2014, le champ d'audit des institutions nationales supérieures de contrôle des finances publiques allait bien au-delà de ce que la CCE est en mesure d'exercer aujourd'hui vis-à-vis de la BCE.

Fonte: https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Task_Force_EBU/Task_Force_EBU_FR.pdf

Preparation for resolution of medium-sized and small banks in the EURO area - Results of a parallel audit of Supreme Audit Institutions on banking resolution

Report ID: 339

In 2012, the European Union (EU) decided to set up a European Banking Union for the euro area. The Banking Union is responsible to ensure that the EU rules for supervision and resolution are implemented effectively and consistently across the euro area and in other participating countries.

In December 2017, a group of national Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) united in the Task Force on European Banking Union published a report on national supervision on medium-sized and smaller banks – or “Less Significant Institutions” (LSIs4) – under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). This report is available at:

https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/report-of-the-task-force-on-european-banking-union-on-prudential-supervision-of-medium-sized-and-small-less-significant-institutions-in-the-european-union-after-the-introduction-of-the-single-supervisory-mechanism

In 2018, the Contact Committee of the heads of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in the EU mandated a group of SAIs united in the Task Force Banking Union to initiate a parallel audit on the functioning of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) in the preparatory activities for the resolution of medium-sized and small banks – or Less Significant Institutions (LSIs) – under the remit of the National Resolution Authorities (NRAs)  in selected countries in the euro area.

The report is aimed to provide insight into the way the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) is set up and carried out for LSIs in different euro area countries, and what potential risks are involved. In addition, the second aim is to identify to what extent SAIs are actually able to exercise their audit mandates and obtain full access to documents required.

The scope of this parallel audit is restricted to resolution planning for medium-sized and small banks. Three research questions were devised for this audit:

1. Are NRAs adequately equipped and prepared to carry out the resolution task regarding medium-sized and small banks?

2. How is the preparation for resolution activities regarding medium-sized and small banks being carried out in practice by the NRAs?

3. Do SAIs face any barriers in auditing banking resolution and obtaining access to relevant documents?

4. How do Ministers of Finance comply with their responsibilities for the functioning of the resolution mechanism? Do they comply with them adequately in practice, including accountability to parliament?

Source:https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Task_Force_EBU_2020/Task_Force_EBU_2020_EN.pdf